JUSTICE POLICY CENTER
How Do People in High-Crime, Low-Income
Communities View the Police?
Nancy La Vigne, Jocelyn Fontaine, and Anamika Dwivedi
February 2017
In certain American communities, public trust in law enforcement, a critical ingredient in public safety,
1
2
is tenuous at best. Residents of these high-crime, heavily disadvantaged communities witness and
experience intensive police presence, high rates of incarceration and community supervision, and
concentrated violence and question the intent, effectiveness, and equity of the criminal justice system.
3
Indeed, police may carry out aggressive strategies that target quality-of-life infractions and drug-, gun-,
4
and gang-related violence in ways that undermine public confidence. Perhaps not surprisingly, areas
with high levels of mistrust tend to be those that are heavily policed, where police use tactics such as
i
5
pretextual stops that damage their relationship with the people they are charged to protect. The
results can be far-reaching: a distrust of the criminal justice system, an unwillingness to cooperate with
6
the police, and a cynical view of the law that can perpetuate crime and victimization.
7
The people most likely to experience high rates of violence and heavy police presence in their
8
9
10
communities have limited resources, social capital, and political voice. Yet their voices, when
amplified, can be a powerful tool that communities can leverage to hold law enforcement accountable.
Integrating the authentic experiences and perceptions of community members into public safety
11
decisionmaking processes is critical in efforts to promote public safety. Quite simply, reductions in
violent crime are not possible without meaningful representation of—and engagement with—the
residents most affected by it.
12
This research brief aims to elevate the experiences, views, and attitudes of residents often
underrepresented in research on perceptions of law enforcement—people living in high-crime
neighborhoods with concentrated disadvantage. Using a unique purposive sampling methodology to
represent residents in communities with the most tenuous relationships with law enforcement, we
i
Pretextual stops are when police stop and search someone for a traffic violation, minor or otherwise, to investigate
other suspicious activity that is separate and unrelated to the initial violation.
conducted in-person surveys in partnership with local organizations in six cities: Birmingham, Alabama;
Fort Worth, Texas; Gary, Indiana; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Stockton,
California. The purpose of these surveys was to collect baseline data on residents’ views of police as part
of an Urban Institute (Urban) evaluation of the National Initiative on Building Community Trust and
Justice (National Initiative). But our findings serve more than an evaluation function, offering insights
into the nature of community-police relations in high-crime, high-poverty neighborhoods and highlight
opportunities for improvement. Our research shows that although variations exist across the six cities,
respondents’ perceptions of police across measures of legitimacy, procedural justice, racial bias,
relatability to police, and applied principles of community policing, on average, are extremely negative.
However, residents also expressed a firm belief in and support for the law and a willingness to partner
with police in public safety efforts. The variation in responses by city suggests that each city’s local
context, including departmental policies and policing approaches, likely influence perceptions.
This brief is organized in four sections. We first review the literature on past efforts to measure and
assess community perceptions of the police; next we describe our study’s methodology. We then
summarize findings across the six cities in accordance with the literature, grouped by category:
procedural justice, police department legitimacy, police bias, community policing, perceptions of the
law, relatability to the police, and willingness to partner with police in public safety efforts. We conclude
by discussing the variation in perceptions across cities and the implications for policy and practice.
About the National Initiative for Building Community Trust and Justice
Established through a cooperative agreement from the US Department of Justice in 2014, the National
Initiative for Building Community Trust and Justice (National Initiative) is a six-city effort to pilot ways
to restore relationships between police and members residing in communities that suffer from high
levels of crime and strained police-community relations. Led by John Jay College of Criminal Justice’s
National Network for Safe Communities, in partnership with the Center for Policing Equity, Yale Law
School, and the Urban Institute, the National Initiative brings together practitioners and researchers
who provide a suite of interventions focused on law enforcement and community members in six cities:
Birmingham, Alabama; Fort Worth, Texas; Gary, Indiana; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania; and Stockton, California. These interventions include (1) training and technical assistance
for police officers on how to engage with residents in a procedurally just manner; (2) trainings that
encourage officers to acknowledge and tamp down implicit biases; and (3) reconciliation discussions
during which police officers and community members have authentic conversations aimed at
acknowledging historic tensions, harms, and misconceptions and repairing relationships. More
information on the National Initiative, along with accompanying resources and tools for communities
interested in engaging in similar efforts, can be found at www.trustandjustice.org.
2
HOW DO PEOPLE IN HIG H-CRIME, LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES V IEW THE POLICE?
Measuring Community Perceptions
The substantial body of literature on the role of procedural justice and police legitimacy, while rich,
suffers from methodological limitations because much of it relies on surveys of either the general
13
14
population or people known to have had contact with the police. General population surveys often
mask differences between groups. Those who are white and more affluent are the most likely to
respond to general population surveys and tend to have relatively favorable views of the police.
15
Meanwhile, findings based on surveys of only those who have had direct interactions with the police do
not include important means by which people develop their perceptions of police—by witnessing
officers’ interactions with members of the public; hearing about officers’ interactions with residents
from family, friends, and neighbors; and watching, reading, and listening to media reports.
16
Another limitation of past research on community perceptions of the police is that it is based largely
17
on mail or telephone surveys. Not only are response rates for these types of surveys low over all, but
18
19
they are particularly suppressed among lower-income respondents, those with less education, and
20
respondents who are racial or linguistic minorities. In-person surveys, by contrast, tend to yield higher
and more representative responses.
21
The shortcomings of past research are particularly acute in the context of police legitimacy. The
places with the most tenuous relationships between residents and police are those that have the
22
highest concentrations of crime, disadvantage, and people of color. It stands to reason then that a
particularly useful survey methodology would be one that is conducted door to door in these
neighborhoods.
Methodology
The purpose of the surveys was to document a baseline of community perceptions of and experiences
with the police, from which we could then measure change associated with implementation of the
ii
National Initiative. To help us create a sample of residences, police departments from the six cities—
Birmingham, Fort Worth, Gary, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, and Stockton—provided us with address-level
iii
crime data. We combined these data with publicly available census data on poverty and disadvantage
to create a composite index of concentrated crime and poverty/disadvantage for each street segment in
iv
each city. Between 37 and 54 percent of residential street segments in each city had no crime during
ii
Residential zones were identified and linked to street segment data. Depending on the city, approximately 44 to
78 percent of each city’s street segments were identified within a residential zone. Aggregated across the six cities,
the total sample size was 84,086 street segments.
iii
For sampling consistency across cities, we used the following crime metrics in our index: aggravated and simple
assault, burglary, disorder offenses, drugs offenses, kidnapping, murder, motor vehicle thefts, prostitution, robbery,
theft, and weapon offenses.
iv
In this study, areas of concentrated disadvantage were determined by examining census tract–level data for each
city. The shares of households with incomes below the poverty level, households receiving public assistance,
female-headed households, unemployed people, households with residents under 18 years old, and people who are
of a nonwhite racial background were Z-scored and scaled together within each tract. Households in the top 10
HOW DO PEOPLE IN HIG H-CRIME, LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES V IEW THE POLICE?
3
the periods for which data were provided; we subsequently removed these street segments from our
potential survey sample. Using our index, we ranked the street segments and identified the top 10
percent with the highest index of concentrated crime and poverty in each city. These street segments
accounted for 39 to 50 percent of all reported crimes on residential streets and made up our final
sampling frame of 6,336 households across the six cities.
We mailed letters to the 6,336 households to let them know about their ability to participate in a
research survey and the general timing of the planned survey. The fieldwork in each city occurred over
one to two weeks, including at least one weekend day, between September 2015 and January 2016. We
v
partnered with local teams of community surveyors to execute the fieldwork. During our survey
period, surveyors attempted to contact an adult occupant at 4,766 households (75.2 percent of the
initial sampling frame). During these attempts, we identified 1,016 households that were vacant or
abandoned and removed them from our valid sample, leading to a revised sampling frame of 3,750 valid
households. For those households in which we could not make contact with an adult or a contacted adult
said he or she did not have sufficient time to complete the survey, we left contact cards that residents
could use to complete the survey in person or over the phone at another time with research staff.
Among the 3,750 households, a total of 1,278 adults completed the survey (1,189 in person and 89
over the phone), which made up 34.1 percent of the valid sampling frame. Contacted adults in 24.4
percent of the valid sample households declined to participate in the survey (916 adults of the 3,750
valid households). We were unable to make contact with any adult in 1,556 of the 3,750 valid
households (41.5 percent) because no one answered the door during the survey period and no one
called Urban using the information on the mailed letter or contact card.
vi
Below are key sociodemographic characteristics of the 1,278 survey respondents. As figures 1 and
2 illustrate, of those surveyed, 66.3 percent identified as black, 11.9 percent identified as white, and
10.6 percent identified as Latinx or Hispanic. The majority of respondents were female.
Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 104, with a median age of 46. A majority of respondents
(61.6 percent) were not employed at the time of the survey (figure 3). As anticipated given the sampling
frame, most respondents lived in households characterized by extreme poverty, with 62.0 percent
reporting a total combined annual income of less than $20,000 (figure 4). By contrast, nationwide in
2015, 13.5 percent of all people in the United States (except unrelated children under age 15, such as
foster children) were living below the federal poverty threshold of $24,257.
vii
percent of both the concentrated disadvantage index and crime index per residential street segments were
selected for this study.
v
In addition to managing all the logistics of the survey effort, Urban researchers selected and trained local
surveyors in each city and transported and supervised them throughout the effort.
vi
We conducted follow-up attempts as time permitted.
vii
This poverty threshold is based on a family of four, with two adults and two children. See “Age and Sex of all
People, Family Members and Unrelated Individuals Iterated by Income-to Poverty Ratio and Race: 2015,” CPS
Poverty Table POV-01, US Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/incomepoverty/cps-pov/pov-01.html.
4
HOW DO PEOPLE IN HIG H-CRIME, LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES V IEW THE POLICE?
FIGURE 1
Race/Ethnicity (percent)
66.3
11.9
Black
White
10.6
4.9
Latinx/Hispanic
Other
2.6
2.2
Mixed Race
Asian
1.3
0.2
American Indian Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
Source: Urban analysis of surveys of residents in Birmingham, AL; Fort Worth, TX; Gary, IN; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA;
and Stockton, CA.
Note: Valid N = 1,278.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
Gender (percent)
Employment Status (percent)
Female
58.6
Male
41.4
Not employed
61.6
Source: Urban analysis of surveys of residents in
Birmingham, AL; Fort Worth, TX; Gary, IN;
Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; and Stockton, CA.
Note: Valid N = 1,228.
Employed
38.4
Source: Urban analysis of surveys of residents in
Birmingham, AL; Fort Worth, TX; Gary, IN;
Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; and Stockton, CA.
Note: Valid N = 1,228.
FIGURE 4
Annual Household Income (percent)
35.8
26.2
15.6
10.9
7.5
4.1
$10k or under
$10,001 – $20k
$20,001 – $30k
$30,001 – $40k
$40,001 – $50k
$50,001 or more
Source: Urban analysis of surveys of residents in Birmingham, AL; Fort Worth, TX; Gary, IN; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; and
Stockton, CA.
Notes: Valid N = 1,105. These data include total combined household income from legal sources such as legal jobs, Social Security,
retirement income, and unemployment payments.
Understanding that perceptions of the police may be closely linked to perceptions of safety and
overall community well-being, we asked respondents to rank the quality of housing, quality of life, and
level of safety in their communities. Figure 5 illustrates that the modal response across these three
metrics was the neutral response in the middle of the poor-to-excellent continuum. Yet 29.1 and 29.9
percent rated their neighborhood safety and quality of life negatively (1 or 2 on the 5-point scale), and
22.8 percent rated their quality of housing negatively.
FIGURE 5
Perceptions of Community
Percentage of residents ranking the following categories from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent)
1
Quality of housing
Quality of life
Neighborhood safety
11.3
14.3
16.5
2
11.5
3
4
5
30.2
15.6
23.2
23.8
37.1
12.6
32.1
18.4
16.3
14.2
22.6
Source: Urban analysis of surveys of residents in Birmingham, AL; Fort Worth, TX; Gary, IN; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; and
Stockton, CA.
Notes: Valid N for quality of housing = 1,273. Valid N for quality of life = 1,253. Valid N for neighborhood safety = 1,250.
Survey Findings
With the sociodemographic and quality-of-life questions in mind, we now turn to the central survey
findings, which we present in seven categories: procedural justice, police department legitimacy, police
bias, community policing, perceptions of the law, relatability to police, and willingness to partner with
the police. The survey questions in each category were drawn from the wealth of literature on policing,
crime control, and police-community relations, and statistically, the grouping of questions reliably and
accurately captured each of the various concepts.
viii
Below we present the degree to which residents in
the six cities agreed or disagreed with the questions in each category and then focus on these scales and
the variation in them across the cities.
viii
Factor analyses yielded Cronbach’s alphas that ranged from 0.87 to 0.96 (by scaled measure).
6
HOW DO PEOPLE IN HIG H-CRIME, LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES V IEW THE POLICE?
Procedural Justice
Amid enhanced public awareness of police shootings of community members, the concept of procedural
justice has garnered increased attention. Procedural justice is composed of four perceptions or beliefs
on the part of residents: they should have a voice when interacting with police, police are trustworthy,
23
the law is fair and should be followed, and police apply the law fairly and appropriately. In practice, if
police conduct themselves in a procedurally just manner, they (1) provide an opportunity for residents
to have a voice and a chance to tell their side of the story, (2) treat residents with dignity and respect, (3)
explain the reasons for their decisions and actions, and (4) convey fairness and impartiality in their
interactions with residents.
Figure 6 shows the percentage of residents across the six cities who responded with a 4 or a 5 on a
5-point scale from almost never (1) to almost always (5) when asked if police behave in procedurally just
ways, such as explaining their decisions and actions. Across all eight questions, the majority did not
believe that police behave or act in procedurally just ways. Well under half responded with a 4 or a 5
(almost always) when asked if police give people a chance to tell their side of the story before they
decide what to do (30.1 percent) and when asked if police explain their decisions and actions in ways
that people can understand (33.1 percent).
FIGURE 6
Perceptions of Procedural Justice
Percentage of residents who believe police…
try to do what is best for the people they are dealing with
34.3
try to help the people that they deal with
34.1
explain their decisions and actions in ways that people can
understand
33.1
respect people's rights
30.2
give people a chance to tell their side of the story before
they decide what to do
30.1
treat people with dignity and respect
30.0
make decisions based on the law and not their personal
opinions or beliefs
make fair and impartial decisions in the cases they deal with
29.3
26.0
Source: Urban analysis of surveys of residents in Birmingham, AL; Fort Worth, TX; Gary, IN; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; and
Stockton, CA.
Notes: Responses ranged from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). Data represent percentage of respondents selecting 4 and 5
(almost always). Valid N = 1,153. Cronbach’s alpha = 0.954.
HOW DO PEOPLE IN HIG H-CRIME, LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES V IEW THE POLICE?
7
Police Department Legitimacy
Research finds that the manner in which the law is applied does more to shape views and engender
24
compliance than perceived fairness of the law or its application. This relates to the concept of police
department legitimacy: for police to be effective, the public must view them as fair and trustworthy
representatives of the law, who apply the law without bias and use their considerable powers to stop,
25
search, detain, and engage in force sparingly, equitably, and justifiably. Such legitimacy is
characterized by residents believing that police share the same sense of right and wrong as they do, that
they uphold values that are important to the public, and that they sincerely aspire to promote safety.
We presented respondents with 12 questions to assess police legitimacy (figure 7). Across all 12
statements, less than half agreed or strongly agreed that police behave in legitimate ways. For example,
only 27.8 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that police almost always behave according
to the law. Approximately one-third agreed or strongly agreed that police stand up for values that are
important to them (31.9 percent) and often arrest people for no good reason (32.0 percent).
FIGURE 7
Perceptions of Police Department Legitimacy
Percentage of residents who agree or strongly agree with each statement
Police in your community are legitimate authorities
42.5
You and the police want the same things for your
community
When the police arrest a person, there is a good reason to
believe that the person has done something wrong
41.1
38.7
Police sincerely try to help people like yourself
Police generally have the same sense of right and wrong
that you do
The laws that the police enforce represent the moral
values of people like yourself
You generally support how the police act in your
community
Values of most of the police officers who work in your
community are similar to your own
37.9
35.9
34.5
33.2
32.8
The police often arrest people for no good reason
32.0
Police stand up for values that are important to you
31.9
The police usually act in ways consistent with your own
ideas about what is right and wrong
When police deal with people, they almost always behave
according to the law
30.7
27.8
Source: Urban analysis of surveys of residents in Birmingham, AL; Fort Worth, TX; Gary, IN; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; and
Stockton, CA.
Notes: Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Data presented are percentage agree and strongly
agree. Valid N = 1,153. Cronbach’s alpha = 0.945.
8
HOW DO PEOPLE IN HIG H-CRIME, LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES V IEW THE POLICE?
Police Bias
Many factors can negatively affect public views of the police, including perceptions that officers apply
the law unevenly based on a person’s race, ethnicity, or other personal characteristics. Research on
police officers’ application of the law has shown that discriminatory practices can be rooted in explicit,
26
implicit, or unconscious biases. Although little is known about the prevalence and nature of police
27
bias and its connection with policing behavior, there is extensive documentation of disparate policing
outcomes associated with race and some research on disparate policing outcomes associated with age,
gender, and sexual orientation. Studies that examine the relationship between a person’s race and
28
29
30
police behavior point to racial disparities in police stops, searches, arrests, and use of force,
31
which can severely erode public trust and reduce perceptions of police legitimacy.
Figure 8 shows that across six questions on perceptions of bias among the police, approximately
half of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that police officers were biased or behaved biasedly.
The statement “police officers will treat you differently because of your race/ethnicity” received the
highest agreement (55.5 percent) from respondents.
FIGURE 8
Perceptions of Police Bias
Percentage of residents who agree or strongly agree with each statement
Police officers will treat you differently because of your
race/ethnicity
55.5
Police officers will judge you based on your race/ethnicity
The police act based on personal prejudices or biases
53.5
51.4
Something you do might be misinterpreted as criminal by
the police due to your race/ethnicity
49.6
Something you say might be misinterpreted as criminal by
the police due to your race/ethnicity
49.4
The police suspect you of being a criminal because of your
race/ethnicity
47.1
Source: Urban analysis of surveys of residents in Birmingham, AL; Fort Worth, TX; Gary, IN; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; and
Stockton, CA.
Notes: Responses ranged from a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Data presented are percentage agree and
strongly agree. Valid N = 1,212. Cronbach’s alpha = 0.958.
HOW DO PEOPLE IN HIG H-CRIME, LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES V IEW THE POLICE?
9
Community Policing
Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and an absence of bias are essential ingredients for community
policing. Community policing relies on collaboration among residents, businesses, and other local
stakeholders to engage in proactive strategies that prevent crime and social disorder and support
healthy and safe communities.
32
Consistent with previous figures, figure 9 shows that only a small percentage of respondents agreed
or strongly agreed that their police departments use the principles of community policing. Only 28
percent agreed that their city’s police department prioritizes problems most important to community
members and is responsive to community concerns. Just 24.4 percent agreed that their local
department holds officers accountable for their conduct.
FIGURE 9
Perceptions of Community Policing
Percentage of residents who agree or strongly agree with each statement
The police department is responsive to community
concerns
28.3
The police department prioritizes problems most
important to your community
28.2
The police department holds officers accountable for
wrong or inappropriate conduct in the community
24.4
Source: Urban analysis of surveys of residents in Birmingham, AL; Fort Worth, TX; Gary, IN; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; and
Stockton, CA.
Notes: Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Data presented are percentage agree and strongly
agree. Valid N = 1,205. Cronbach’s alpha = 0.874.
Perceptions of the Law
A police department’s effectiveness in controlling and preventing crime is closely related to residents’
perceptions of the law and, more specifically, their belief in the rule of law. Negative views of the justice
system contribute to “legal cynicism,” whereby people neither report crime nor cooperate with the
33
police. Neighborhoods with high levels of legal cynicism often have high crime rates and low collective
ix
efficacy. A self-reinforcing cycle of resident noncooperation leads law enforcement to view community
ix
In the social sciences, “collective efficacy” describes the willingness of residents to exert informal social control on
each other and reinforce social norms and acceptable behavior. Neighborhoods with high collective efficacy are
often associated with high levels of trust and solidarity among residents. See Robert J. Sampson, Stephen W.
Raudenbush, and Felton Earls, “Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy, Science
10
HOW DO PEOPLE IN HIG H-CRIME, LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES V IEW THE POLICE?
residents as apathetic about crime problems and hostile to the department, while residents perceive
police as biased, indifferent, and ineffective.
34
Our findings indicate that a majority of respondents support or believe in the law. Indeed, nearly
three in four agreed that all laws should be strictly obeyed (74.3 percent), following the law ultimately
benefits everyone in the community (72.9 percent), and people should do what the law says (73.8
percent). Yet a smaller percentage agreed that the laws are generally consistent with community
members’ views on what is right and just (49.2 percent). Similarly, just over half (51.8 percent) agreed
that it is hard to break the law and keep your self-respect.
FIGURE 10
Perceptions of the Law
Percentage of residents who agree or strongly agree with each statement
All laws should be strictly obeyed
74.3
People should do what the law says
73.8
Obeying the law ultimately benefits everyone in the
community
72.9
The laws in your community are consistent with your own
intuitions about what is right and just
A person who disobeys laws is a danger to others in the
community
It is hard to break the law and keep your self-respect
The laws of our system are generally consistent with the
views of the people in your community about what is just
and right
55.5
54.2
51.8
49.2
Source: Urban analysis of surveys of residents in Birmingham, AL; Fort Worth, TX; Gary, IN; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; and
Stockton, CA.
Notes: Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Data presented are percentage agree and strongly
agree. Valid N = 1,205. Cronbach’s alpha = 0.868.
277:918–24; and Robert K. Sampson and Dawn Bartusch, “Legal Cynicism and (Subcultural?) Tolerance of
Deviance: The Neighborhood Context of Racial Differences,” Law & Society Review 32, no. 4 (1998): 777–804.
HOW DO PEOPLE IN HIG H-CRIME, LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES V IEW THE POLICE?
11
Relatability to Police
Testing a new concept not previously addressed in the literature, we hypothesized that the ways in
which police engage with community members while enforcing the law are closely linked to residents’
perceptions of relatability to police. Measures of relatability include the degree to which residents view
the police as honest, personally trust the police, feel safe in the presence of police, and perceive the
police as a part of the community.
Figure 11 indicates that residents’ perceptions of their relatability to police are somewhat mixed
and perhaps inconsistent. For example, while less than one-quarter of respondents agreed that the
police are honest (23.8 percent), a considerable share could imagine being friends with a police officer
(42.9 percent). This underscores a phenomenon that has been documented in the literature: Despite
often deep distrust in law enforcement overall, individual relationships with individual patrol officers
can be strong and positive.
35
FIGURE 11
Perceptions of Relatability to Police
Percentage of residents who agree or strongly agree with each statement
You can imagine being friends with a police officer
42.9
You feel safe around the police
37.8
You feel comfortable around the police
36.3
The police are a part of your neighborhood
35.8
You personally trust the police
The police are honest
30.1
23.8
Source: Urban analysis of surveys of residents in Birmingham, AL; Fort Worth, TX; Gary, IN; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; and
Stockton, CA.
Notes: Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Data presented are percentage agree and strongly
agree. Valid N = 1,209. Cronbach’s alpha = 0.914.
12
HOW DO PEOPLE IN HIG H-CRIME, LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES V IEW THE POLICE?
Willingness to Partner with Police
Improvements in officer behavior during encounters with community members can build public trust. In
turn, this trust can encourage residents to be more likely to comply with the law and more willing to
partner with police in crime response and crime prevention, such as coming forth as witnesses or
36
collaborating on crime control efforts. A strong relationship exists between police legitimacy and
public safety; higher perceptions of police as trustworthy and fair are associated with increased
willingness to report crimes, serve as witnesses, and comply with the law.
37
As figure 12 shows, surveyed residents were generally willing to partner with police on crime
control efforts. A majority indicated that they were likely to report a crime (70.8 percent), report
suspicious activity near their home (68.5 percent), and provide information to help find a suspect (63.5
percent). A smaller percentage, but close to half, said they would volunteer their time to help solve a
crime or find a suspect (47.3 percent). While a slightly smaller percentage said they would patrol the
streets (41.3 percent), more than half (53.0 percent) were willing to attend a community meeting with
police.
FIGURE 12
Willingness to Partner with the Police
Percentage of residents who would be likely or very likely to…
call the police to report a crime
70.8
report suspicious activity near your home to the police
68.5
provide information to the police to help find a suspect
63.5
attend a community meeting with the police to discuss
crime in your neighborhood
volunteer your time to help the police solve a crime or find
a suspect
patrol the streets as part of an organized community
group
53.0
47.3
41.3
Source: Urban analysis of surveys of residents in Birmingham, AL; Fort Worth, TX; Gary, IN; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; and
Stockton, CA.
Notes: Responses ranged from 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely). Data presented are percentage likely and very likely. Valid
N = 1,249. Cronbach’s alpha = 0.887.
HOW DO PEOPLE IN HIG H-CRIME, LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES V IEW THE POLICE?
13
Variations across Cities
The graphs featured in the previous section represent responses from residents across the six cities that
are the focus of our evaluation. These sampled cities are geographically disparate. They also differ in
total population and police department size and along various sociodemographic characteristics.
Although we found substantial similarities in the responses and findings across the cities, there was
variation. For example, figure 13 presents the respondents’ average ratings and ranges associated with
the seven scaled categories: procedural justice, police department legitimacy, police bias, community
policing, perceptions of the law, relatability to the police, and willingness to partner with police in public
safety efforts. For each scale in figure 13, we show the average rating in a circle and the range of
responses on either side.
FIGURE 13
Average Ratings and Ranges in Residents’ Perceptions
Police Department Legitimacy
Community Policing
Procedural Justice Practices
Relatability to Police
Police Bias
Willingness to Partner with Police
Perceptions of the Law
2.6
3.0
2.6
2.3
2.5
2.6
3.5
3.1
2.9
3.5
2.9
3.3
3.0
3.4
3.1
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.8
3.8
4.0
Source: Urban analysis of surveys of residents in Birmingham, AL; Fort Worth, TX; Gary, IN; Minneapolis, MN; Pittsburgh, PA; and
Stockton, CA.
Note: Valid N = 1,278.
As shown in figure 13, some categories had a smaller range of responses than others. For example,
the range between high and low ratings for perceptions of the law is smaller than the range for ratings of
procedural justice. This suggests that residents across the cities are more similar in their belief in the
law than they are in their perceptions of their department’s procedural justice. As mentioned
previously, local context, department policies, and officer practices likely influence residents’
14
HOW DO PEOPLE IN HIG H-CRIME, LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES V IEW THE POLICE?
perceptions and, consequently, our findings. Forthcoming analyses will focus on city-specific metrics
and explore within-city variations across these metrics to help inform police engagement with residents
and potential changes in policies and practices.
Conclusion
The purpose of our survey was to collect baseline information on community sentiment, focusing on
people living in areas with high levels of disadvantage and reported crime. Although our methodology
yielded a relatively modest 34.1 percent response rate, it uniquely surveyed residents who are often
38
underrepresented in typical phone- and mail-based surveys on satisfaction with the police. Moreover,
our purposive sampling methodology represents a new way to view community perceptions of the
police—by surveying people who live in the areas where trust may be weakest, but who may benefit the
most from increases in public safety. Indeed, their perspectives offer a much-needed addition to the
existing literature on perceptions of police—a diverse sample of people living in areas most likely to
experience heavy police presence because of high rates of reported crime and concentrated
disadvantage.
Given our sampling methodology, it is not surprising that most respondents viewed police
negatively across measures of procedural justice, police department legitimacy, police bias, and
community policing. Perhaps the more instructive findings are residents’ strong belief in the law and
their willingness to partner with the police. These findings suggest that the ground may be more fertile
than expected for repairing relationships between community members and the police.
The range in responses by city suggests that local context, departmental policies, and approaches to
policing influence community perceptions. We expect the findings to be more illustrative when
compared with our planned second wave of surveys. Conducting a comparative analysis will allow us to
assess the impact of the full implementation of the National Initiative activities on community
perceptions, including police training on procedural justice and implicit bias, policy and practice
changes, and the community-police reconciliation process.
HOW DO PEOPLE IN HIG H-CRIME, LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES V IEW THE POLICE?
15
Notes
1.
Tom R. Tyler and Yuen Huo, Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts (New
York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2002).
2.
Jeffrey M. Jones, “In U.S., Confidence in Police Lowest in 22 Years,” Gallup, June 19, 2015,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183704/confidence-police-lowest-years.aspx; Rich Morin and Renee Stepler, The
Racial Confidence Gap in Police Performance (Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2016).
3.
Patrick J. Carr, Laura Napolitano, and Jessica Keating, “We Never Call the Cops and Here Is Why: A Qualitative
Examination of Legal Cynicism in Three Philadelphia Neighborhoods,” Criminology 45, no. 2 (2007): 445–80;
Christopher Muller and Daniel Schrage, “Mass Imprisonment and Trust in the Law,” Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 651 (2014): 139.
4.
K. Babe Howell, “Broken Lives from Broken Windows: The Hidden Costs of Aggressive Order-Maintenance
Policing,” New York University Review of Law & Social Change 33 (2009): 271–326.
5.
Jennifer Fratello, Andres F. Rengifo, and Jennifer Trone, Coming of Age with Stop and Frisk: Experiences, SelfPerceptions, and Public Safety Implications (New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2013).
6.
Jason Sunshine and Tom Tyler, “The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for
Policing,” Law & Society Review 37, no. 3 (2003): 513–48; Tom R. Tyler and Jeffrey Fagan, “Legitimacy and
Cooperation: Why Do People Help the Police Fight Crime in Their Communities,” Ohio State Journal of Criminal
Law 6 (2008): 231.
7.
Carr, Napolitano, and Keating, “We Never Call the Cops.”
8.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Driving While Black: Racial Profiling on Our Nation’s Highways (New York:
ACLU, 1999); Lauren J. Krivo and Ruth D. Peterson, “Extremely Disadvantaged Neighborhoods and Urban
Crime,” Social Forces 75, no. 2 (1996): 619–48; Matthew Petrocelli, Alex R. Piquero, and Michael R. Smith,
“Conflict Theory and Racial Profiling: An Empirical Analysis of Police Traffic Stop Data,” Journal of Criminal
Justice 31, no. 1 (2003): 1–11; Douglas A. Smith, “The Neighborhood Context of Police Behavior,” in
Communities and Crime, ed. Albert J. Reiss Jr. and Michael Tonry (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986),
313–41; Douglas A. Smith and Christy A. Visher, “Street-Level Justice: Situational Determinants of Police
Arrest Decisions,” Social Problems 29, no. 2 (1981): 167–77; Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, Marcinda Mason, and
Matthew Zingraff, “Looking for the Driving While Black Phenomena: Conceptualizing Racial Bias Processes
and Their Associated Distributions,” Police Quarterly 7, no. 1 (2004): 3–29.
9.
Judith R. Blau and Peter Blau, “The Cost of Inequality: Metropolitan Structure and Violent Crime,” American
Sociological Review (1982): 114–29; Ching-Chi Hsieh and M. D. Pugh, “Poverty, Income Inequality, and Violent
Crime: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Aggregate Data Studies,” Criminal Justice Review 18, no. 2 (1993): 182–202;
Morgan Kelly, “Inequality and Crime,” Review of Economics and Statistics 82, no. 4 (2000): 530–39.
10. Traci R. Burch, “Effects of Imprisonment and Community Supervision on Neighborhood Political Participation
in North Carolina,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 651, no 1. (2014): 184–201;
Amy E. Lerman and Vesla Weaver, “Staying Out of Sight? Concentrated Policing and Local Political Action,”
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 651, no. 1 (2014): 202–19; Christopher Uggen,
Sarah Shannon, and Jeff Manza, State-Level Estimates of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States, 2010
(Washington, DC: Sentencing Project, 2012).
11. Tom R. Tyler, “Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and the Effective Rule of Law,” Crime and Justice (2003): 283–
357; Tyler and Fagan, “Legitimacy and Cooperation”; Tom R. Tyler and Jonathan Jackson, “Popular Legitimacy
and the Exercise of Legal Authority: Motivating Compliance, Cooperation, and Engagement,” Psychology, Public
Policy, and Law 20 (2014): 78–95.
12. Wesley G. Skogan and Kathleen Frydl, eds., Fairness & Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence (Washington, DC:
National Academies Press, 2003).
13. Wesley G. Skogan, “Citizen Satisfaction with Police Encounters,” Police Quarterly 8, no. 3 (2005): 298–321.
14. Skogan, “Citizen Satisfaction with Police Encounters”; Tom R. Tyler, Why People Obey the Law: Procedural
Justice, Legitimacy, and Compliance (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990); Tom R. Tyler and Cheryl
16
HOW DO PEOPLE IN HIG H-CRIME, LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES V IEW THE POLICE?
Wakslak, “Profiling and Police Legitimacy: Procedural Justice, Attributions of Motive, and Acceptance of Police
Authority,” Criminology 42, no. 2 (2004): 253–82.
15. Floyd Jackson Fowler, Patricia M. Gallagher, Vickie L. Stringfellow, Alan M. Zaslavsky, Joseph W. Thompson,
and Paul D. Cleary, “Using Telephone Interviews to Reduce Nonresponse Bias to Mail Surveys of Health Plan
Members,” Medical Care 40, no. 3 (2002): 190–200; Maria Krysan, Howard Schuman, Lesli Jo Scott, and Paul
Beatty, “Response Rates and Response Content in Mail versus Face-to-Face Surveys,” Public Opinion Quarterly
58, no. 3 (1994): 381–99; Frank Newport, “Gallup Review: Black and White Attitudes toward Police,” Gallup,
August 20, 2014, http://www.gallup.com/poll/175088/gallup-review-black-white-attitudes-towardpolice.aspx; Pew Research Center, Few Say Police Forces Nationally Do Well in Treating Races Equally
(Washington, DC: Pew Research Center and USA Today, 2014).
16. Joel Miller, Robert C. Davis, Nicole J. Henderson, John Markovic, and Christopher W. Ortiz, Public Opinions of
the Police: The Influence of Friends, Family, and News Media (New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2004); Wesley G.
Skogan, “Asymmetry in the Impact of Encounters with Police,” Policing & Society 16, no. 2 (2006): 99–126.
17. Edith de Leeuw and Wim de Heer, “Trends in Household Survey Nonresponse: A Longitudinal and
International Comparison,” in Survey Nonresponse, ed. Robert M. Groves, Don A. Dillman, John L. Eltinge, and
Roderick J. A. Little (New York: Wiley, 2002), 41–54; Robert M. Groves, “Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse
Bias in Household Surveys,” Public Opinion Quarterly 70, no. 5 (2006): 646–75.
18. Stephen J. Blumberg and Julian Luke, “Coverage Bias in Traditional Telephone Surveys of Low-Income and
Young Adults,” Public Opinion Quarterly 71, no. 5 (2007): 734–49; Alfred C. Marcus and Lori A. Crane,
“Telephone Surveys in Public Health Research,” Medical Care 24, no. 2 (1986): 97–112; Colleen A. McHorney,
Mark Kosinski, and John E. Ware Jr., “Comparisons of the Costs and Quality of Norms for the SF-36 Health
Survey Collected by Mail versus Telephone Interview: Results from a National Survey,” Medical Care 32, no. 6
(1994): 551–67.
19. Marcus and Crane, “Telephone Surveys in Public Health Research”; McHorney, Kosinski, and Ware,
“Comparisons of the Costs and Quality of Norms”; John C. Whitehead, Peter Groothuis, and Glenn Blomquist,
“Testing for Non-Response and Sample Selection Bias in Contingent Valuation: Analysis of a Combination
Phone/Mail Survey,” Economics Letters 41, no. 2 (1993): 215–20.
20. Fowler et al., “Using Telephone Interviews to Reduce Nonresponse Bias”; Krysan et al., “Response Rates and
Response Content”; Sunghee Lee, E. Richard Brown, David Grant, Thomas R. Belin, and J. Michael Brick,
“Exploring Nonresponse Bias in a Health Survey Using Neighborhood Characteristics,” American Journal of
Public Health 99, no. 10 (2009): 1811–17, http://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.154161.
21. Joop J. Hox and Edith D. De Leeuw, “A Comparison of Nonresponse in Mail, Telephone, and Face-to-Face
Surveys,” Quality and Quantity 28, no. 4 (1994): 329–44; Marcus and Crane, “Telephone Surveys in Public
Health Research”; Kevin W. Miller, Lora B. Wilder, Frances A. Stillman, and Diane M. Becker, “The Feasibility of
a Street-Intercept Survey Method in an African-American Community,” American Journal of Public Health 87,
no. 4 (1997): 655–58.
22. Blau and Blau, “The Cost of Inequality”; Hsieh and Pugh, “Poverty, Income Inequality, and Violent Crime”; Kelly,
“Inequality and Crime”; David S. Kirk, “The Neighborhood Context of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Arrest,”
Demography 45, no. 1 (2008): 55–77.
23. Fowler et al., “Using Telephone Interviews to Reduce Nonresponse Bias”; Jacinta M. Gau, “The Convergent and
Discriminant Validity of Procedural Justice and Police Legitimacy: An Empirical Test of Core Theoretical
Propositions,” Journal of Criminal Justice 39, no. 6 (2011): 489–98; Mike Hough, Jonathan Jackson, and Ben
Bradford, “Trust in Justice and the Legitimacy of Legal Authorities: Topline Findings from a European
Comparative Study,” in The Routledge Handbook of European Criminology, ed. Sophie Body-Gendrot, Mike
Hough, Klara Kerezsi, René Lévy, and Sonja Snacken (Oxford: Routledge, 2014); Kristina Murphy, “Regulating
More Effectively: The Relationship between Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Tax Non‐Compliance,” Journal
of Law and Society 32, no. 4 (2005): 562–89; Tom R. Tyler, “Enhancing Police Legitimacy,” Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 593, no. 1 (2004): 84–99; Tyler and Fagan, “Legitimacy and Cooperation”;
Tyler and Wakslak, “Profiling and Police Legitimacy.”
24. Jacinta M. Gau, Nicholas Corsaro, Eric A. Stewart, and Rod K. Brunson, “Examining Macro-Level Impacts on
Procedural Justice and Police Legitimacy,” Journal of Criminal Justice 40, no. 4 (2012): 333–43; Lyn Hinds and
Kristina Murphy, “Public Satisfaction with Police: Using Procedural Justice to Improve Police Legitimacy,”
HOW DO PEOPLE IN HIG H-CRIME, LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES V IEW THE POLICE?
17
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 40, no. 1 (2007): 27–42; Jonathan Jackson, Mike Hough, Ben
Bradford, Katrin Hohl, and Jouni Kuha, “Policing by Consent: Understanding the Dynamics of Police Power and
Legitimacy,” ESS Country Specific Topline Results Series, (1) (London: European Social Survey, 2012); Lorraine
Mazerolle, Sarah Bennett, Emma Antrobus, and Elizabeth Eggins, “Procedural Justice, Routine Encounters and
Citizen Perceptions of Police: Main Findings from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET),”
Journal of Experimental Criminology 8, no. 4 (2012): 343–67; Murphy, “Regulating More Effectively”; Kristina
Murphy, Tom Tyler, and Amy Curtis, “Nurturing Regulatory Compliance: Is Procedural Justice Effective when
People Question the Legitimacy of the Law?” Regulation & Governance 3, no. 1 (2009): 1–26; Michael D. Reisig
and Camille Lloyd, “Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy, and Helping the Police Fight Crime: Results from a
Survey of Jamaican Adolescents,” Police Quarterly 12, no. 1 (2009): 4–62; Michael D. Reisig, Justice Tankebe,
and Gorazd Mesko, “Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy, and Public Cooperation with the Police among
Young Slovene Adults,” Varstvoslovje 14, no. 2 (2012): 147; Tyler, “Enhancing Police Legitimacy”; Tyler,
“Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and the Effective Rule of Law”; Tyler, “Why People Obey the Law”; Tyler and
Fagan, “Legitimacy and Cooperation”; Tyler and Wakslak, “Profiling and Police Legitimacy”; Scott E. Wolfe,
“The Effect of Low Self-Control on Perceived Police Legitimacy,” Journal of Criminal Justice 39, no 1 (2011): 67–
74; Tal Jonathan-Zamir and David Weisburd, “The Effects of Security Threats on Antecedents of Police
Legitimacy: Findings from a Quasi-Experiment in Israel,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 50, no. 1
(2013): 3–32; Scott E. Wolfe, Justin Nix, Robert Kaminski, and Jeff Rojek, “Is the Effect of Procedural Justice on
Police Legitimacy Invariant? Testing the Generality of Procedural Justice and Competing Antecedents of
Legitimacy,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 32, no. 2 (2016): 253–82.
25. Tyler, “Enhancing Police Legitimacy”; Tyler and Fagan, “Legitimacy and Cooperation.”
26. Lorie Fridell, “This Is Not Your Grandparents’ Prejudice: The Implications of the Modern Science of Bias for
Police Training,” Translational Criminology 5 (2013): 10–11; Phillip A. Goff, Claude M. Steele, and Paul G. Davies,
“The Space between Us: Stereotype Threat and Distance in Interracial Contexts,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 94, no. 1 (2008): 91–107.
27. Phillip A. Goff and Kimberly Kahn, “Racial Bias in Policing: Why We Know Less Than We Should,” Journal of
Social Issues and Policy Review 6, no. 1 (2012): 177–210.
28. Robin S. Engel and Richard Johnson, “Toward a Better Understanding of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Search
and Seizure Rates,” Journal of Criminal Justice 34, no. 6 (2006): 605–17; Jeffrey Fagan and Garth Davies, “Street
Stops and Broken Windows: Terry, Race and Disorder in New York City,” Fordham Urban Law Journal 28 (2000):
457; Andrew Gelman, Jeffrey Fagan, and Alex Kiss, “An Analysis of the New York City Police Department’s
‘Stop and-Frisk’ Policy in the Context of Claims of Racial Bias,” Journal of the American Statistical Association 102,
no. 479 (2012): 813–23; Richard J. Lundman and Robert L. Kaufman, “Driving While Black: Effects of Race,
Ethnicity, and Gender on Citizen Self-Reports of Traffic Stops and Police Actions,” Criminology 41, no. 1 (2003):
195–220; John Reitzel and Alex Piquero, “Does It Exist? Studying Citizens’ Attitudes of Racial Profiling,” Police
Quarterly 9, no. 2 (2006): 161–83; Rob Tillyer, Robin S. Engel, and John Wooldredge, “The Intersection of Racial
Profiling Research and the Law,” Journal of Criminal Justice 36, no. 2 (2008): 138–53; Patricia Warren, Donald
Tomaskovic-Devey, William Smith, Matthew Zingraff, and Marcinda Mason, “Driving While Black: Bias
Processes and Racial Disparity in Police Stops,” Criminology 44, no. 3 (2006): 709–38.
29. Robin S. Engel and Jennifer M. Calnon, “Comparing Benchmark Methodologies for Police-Citizen Contacts:
Traffic Stop Data Collection for the Pennsylvania State Police,” Police Quarterly 7, no. 1 (2004): 97–125; Robin
S. Engel and Jennifer M. Calnon, “Examining the Influence of Drivers’ Characteristics during Traffic Stops with
Police: Results from a National Survey,” Justice Quarterly 21, no. 1 (2004): 49–90; Warren et al., “Driving While
Black.”
30. Robert A. Brown and James Frank, “Race and Officer Decision Making: Examining Difference in Arrest
Outcomes between Black and White Officers,” Justice Quarterly 23, no. 1 (2006): 96–126; Tammy Rinehart
Kochel, David B. Wilson, and Stephen D. Mastrofski, “Effect of Suspect Race on Officers’ Arrest Decisions,”
Criminology 49, no. 2 (2011): 473–512.
31. Phillip A. Goff, Dean Obermark, Nancy G. La Vigne, Jennifer Yahner, and Amanda Geller, The Science of Policing
Equity (Washington DC: Urban Institute, 2016).
32. US Department of Justice (DOJ), Community Policing Defined. Community Oriented Policing Services (Washington,
DC: DOJ, 2012).
18
HOW DO PEOPLE IN HIG H-CRIME, LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES V IEW THE POLICE?
33. Carr, Napolitano, and Keating, “We Never Call the Cops”; David S. Kirk and Andrew V. Papachristos, “Cultural
Mechanisms and the Persistence of Neighborhood Violence,” American Journal of Sociology (2011): 1190–1233.
34. David Kennedy, “Drugs, Race and Common Ground: Reflections on the High Point Intervention,” NIJ Journal
262 (2009): 12–17.
35. Paul E. Smith and Richard O. Hawkins, “Victimization, Types of Citizen-Police Contacts, and Attitudes Toward
the Police,” Law & Society Review 8, no. 1 (1973): 135–52; Tom R. Tyler, Jonathan Jackson, and Avital
Mentovich, “The Consequences of Being an Object of Suspicion: Potential Pitfalls of Proactive Police Contact,”
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 12, no. 4 (2015): 602–36; Elaine B. Sharp and Paul E. Johnson, “Accounting for
Variation in Distrust of Local Police,” Justice Quarterly 26, no. 1 (2009): 157–82.
36. Tyler and Fagan, “Legitimacy and Cooperation.”
37. Ben Bradford, and Jonathan Jackson, “Cooperating with the Police: Social Control and the Reproduction of
Police Legitimacy,” working paper, 2010, available at SSRN 1640958; Lyn Hinds, “Youth, Police Legitimacy, and
Informal Contact,” Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 24, no. 1 (2009): 10–21; Hough, Jackson, and
Bradford, “The Governance of Criminal Justice, Legitimacy and Trust”; Tammy Rinehart Kochel, Roger Parks,
and Stephen D. Mastrofski, “Examining Police Effectiveness as a Precursor to Legitimacy and Cooperation with
Police,” Justice Quarterly 30, no. 5 (2013): 895–925; John D. McCluskey, Stephen D. Mastrofski, and Roger B.
Parks, “To Acquiesce or Rebel: Predicting Citizen Compliance with Police Requests,” Police Quarterly 2, no. 4
(1999): 389–416; Murphy, “Regulating More Effectively”; Murphy, Tyler, and Curtis, “Nurturing Regulatory
Compliance”; Reisig and Lloyd, “Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy, and Helping the Police Fight Crime”;
Reisig, Tankebe, and Mesko, “Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy, and Public Cooperation with the Police
among Young Slovene Adults”; Sunshine and Tyler, “The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy”; Tyler and
Fagan, “Legitimacy and Cooperation”; Tyler and Jackson, “Popular Legitimacy and the Exercise of Legal
Authority”; Tom R. Tyler, Stephen Schulhofer, and Aziz Huq, “Legitimacy and Deterrence Effects in
Counterterrorism Policing: A Study of Muslim Americans,” Law & Society Review 44, no. 2 (2010): 365–402.
38. Deborah Weisel, “Conducting Community Surveys: A Practical Guide for Law Enforcement Agencies”
(Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 1999).
About the Authors
Nancy La Vigne is the director of the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute. She manages a staff of
more than 50 scholars and conducts her own research on policing, criminal justice technologies, and
reentry from incarceration.
Jocelyn Fontaine is a senior research associate in the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center. Her
research portfolio focuses on evaluations of community-based crime reduction and reentry initiatives
that use both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.
Anamika Dwivedi is a research associate in the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center. Her research
centers on policing and crime prevention, with an emphasis on community policing and communitydriven responses to crime.
HOW DO PEOPLE IN HIG H-CRIME, LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES V IEW THE POLICE?
19
Acknowledgments
This brief was supported by cooperative agreement number 2014-MU-MU-K051 awarded by the US
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban
Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Funders do not determine research findings or the insights and
recommendations of Urban experts. Further information on the Urban Institute’s funding principles is
available at www.urban.org/support.
We thank Jesse Jannetta for his ongoing leadership of the implementation evaluation of the
National Initiative. We are also grateful for the hard work of the surveyors from community
organizations across the six cities: the Birmingham Urban League, One Safe Place, Neighborhood
Services Inc., Minneapolis Urban League, Urban League of Greater Pittsburgh, and Fathers & Families of
San Joaquin. Survey collection, entry, and analysis could not have been accomplished without the
efforts of fellow researchers at Urban, including Dan Lawrence, Mathew Lynch, Emma Kurs, Ellen
Paddock, Carla Vasquez Noriega, Josh Eisenstat, Hanna Love, Erica Kouka, and Isela Banuelos.
We also appreciate each city’s police department and their leadership in providing data to support
our research: Birmingham Police Department, Fort Worth Police Department, Gary Police Department,
Minneapolis Police Department, Pittsburgh Police Department, and Stockton Police Department.
ABOUT THE URBAN INST ITUTE
2100 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20037
www.urban.org
20
The nonprofit Urban Institute is dedicated to elevating the debate on social and
economic policy. For nearly five decades, Urban scholars have conducted research
and offered evidence-based solutions that improve lives and strengthen
communities across a rapidly urbanizing world. Their objective research helps
expand opportunities for all, reduce hardship among the most vulnerable, and
strengthen the effectiveness of the public sector.
Copyright © February 2017. Urban Institute. Permission is granted for reproduction
of this file, with attribution to the Urban Institute.
HOW DO PEOPLE IN HIG H-CRIME, LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES V IEW THE POLICE?